Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 11 February 2022

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

1312 Vassar

1312 Vassar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. It's an unusually high inclination asteroid , has been the subject of multiple early orbital studies , and has also been considered as a candidate object in an interesting orbital resonance . —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per David even if his "interesting inclination" and single object resonance study seems arbitrary. Had someone studied 5+ objects in a single paper, David would have probably have blown this object off. -- Kheider (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. I am primarily looking for multiple in-depth reliable sources that we can use to write an article that is not merely a copy of someone's database entry, and secondarily for properties that make these objects somehow unusual rather than run-of-the-mill. Sources about one object are in general more in-depth than sources about many objects, which often reduce each of the objects they study to a line in a table. I am also not counting the many papers that list favorable positions of asteroids but say nothing about them, and the many publications that list names of asteroids (because they're too unselective and not enough about the asteroid itself). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• You are aware that being the largest ~20-30 asteroids of a certain type would make an asteroid "somehow unusual rather than run-of-the-mill". -- Kheider (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:MILL is an essay, not a policy. It's also just a recommendation of what types of articles not to create. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Much as WP:NASTRO is merely a guideline and should not be used to remove borderline asteroids and commit needless genocide. The problem was created by bots and should not be over corrected. -- Kheider (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Did you seriously just call 'taking these articles to AfD so their notability can be discussed' genocide? Seriously? ― Padenton|✉   20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I compared re-directing 15,000 bot-created asteroid stubs to genocide. Apparently, you took a strong offense to my usage and started attacking me on several pages. -- Kheider (talk)

Armenian Genocide is genocide. The Holocaust was genocide. Genocides_in_history is a nice long list of real genocides. Genocide "is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group." And you're comparing the nomination of articles with questionable notability (completely within policy by WP:AFD) to systematic mass murder of a group of people? You seriously don't see a problem with that?

I didn't attack you anywhere. I said there were several policies you were violating, and provided evidence to support my claims. ― Padenton|✉   15:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.